If we had enough American companies that were capable to do so, then that would be a good idea, unfortunately we don't.
it's about eliminating unnecessary risks where they can be removed. Why would we add one more item to check to an already lax port security system?
There is zero risk involved. The only risk is a perceived risk, not a real risk. Also, our ports are much more secure then the MSM want you to believe.
"If we had enough American companies that were capable to do so, then that would be a good idea, unfortunately we don't."
But Rush and everyone pushing the deal seem so certain that no actual employees will be different, that the only people involved are top functionaries simply collecting profits. Why is it so tough to get some other company to do THAT work?
"There is zero risk involved. The only risk is a perceived risk, not a real risk. Also, our ports are much more secure then the MSM want you to believe."
Zero risk involved. Check. Merely a perceived risk. Check. Ports secure. Check.
[KAFF, HACK, BLAAARF]
Sorry, I couldn't swallow all that. I know we check 100% of our incoming stuff for radioactivity. I know we check our high risk stuff before it even leaves the foreign port. What I don't know is that simply having the operational plans for the ports in any UAE given citizen's hands would merely a perceived risk. I think it's an actual risk, and I'm a tad biased, sure, but I'm not willing to agree that we should gamble on a 'perceived risk' when we can simply tell foreign companies that in these certain areas, we don't deal in 'perceived risks.' And I don't buy that our ports are secure--they probably ARE more secure than the MSM is painting them, but until we're sure of every container, they're not as secure as they should be in a time of war.